Filed: Mar. 17, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2361 JONATHAN BOLLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. SCOTT STREET, III, Secretary of the Virginia Board of Examiners, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00550-REP) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011 Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2361 JONATHAN BOLLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. SCOTT STREET, III, Secretary of the Virginia Board of Examiners, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00550-REP) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011 Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2361 JONATHAN BOLLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. SCOTT STREET, III, Secretary of the Virginia Board of Examiners, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00550-REP) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011 Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Bolls, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Crooks Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Bolls appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Bolls’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bolls v. Street, No. 3:10-cv-00550-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 5 & Dec. 16, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
